Bush claims executive privilege on CIA leak WASHINGTON - President Bush has asserted executive privilege to prevent Attorney General Michael Mukasey from having to comply with a House panel subpoena for material on the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

A House committee chairman, meanwhile, held off on a contempt citation of Mukasey — who had requested the privilege claim — but only as a courtesy to lawmakers not present.

Among the documents sought by House Oversight Chairman Henry Waxman are FBI interviews of Vice President Dick Cheney.

They also include notes about the 2003 State of the Union address, during which President Bush made the case for invading Iraq in part by saying Saddam Hussein was pursuing uranium ore to make a nuclear weapon. That information turned out to be wrong...

"Don't make me stain my last clean shirt with the back of your head." - Shatter Dead"A grizzly bear with a chainsaw. Now THERE's a killing machine!" - The Simpsons"I've always wanted to make love to an angry welder." - Jaws: the Revenge

It'a already been established who leaked her identity, and it was NOT Cheney or Bush, or even Scooter Libby - this is just one more long witch hunt by a Congress whose hatred of Bush long ago trumped what little common sense they ever had. Over 500 investigations of the White House, but they can't even approve a general budget for the country they are supposed to be running. No wonder their approval rating is 9%.

Lost sight of in all of this is the fact that Joe Wilson's report to the Bush Administration was deliberately skewed when he turned it in . . . and that his hottie CIA wife, Valerie, had flaunted her "secret agent" status at Washington cocktail parties for years.

This whole thing is like the U.S. Attorney firings - routine political moves inflated to scandal status by politicians who would rather see Americal lose a war than see this President get credit for winning one.

If it's such a non-issue though, then why pull something like executive privilege to dodge it? If there's nothing to be ashamed of, then why hide it? If there's nothing to answer for then why not just come out with it and put an end to the matter? Using something like Executive Privilege to avoid the issue just makes everybody look guilty, so if nobody's done anything wrong, why not be honest and put all doubt and speculation to rest? Not making accusations myself, just saying that anytime anybody opts to hide from inquiries it smacks to me of someone trying to sweep wrong doings under the rug, Republican, Democrat, or human being.

Logged

"Don't make me stain my last clean shirt with the back of your head." - Shatter Dead"A grizzly bear with a chainsaw. Now THERE's a killing machine!" - The Simpsons"I've always wanted to make love to an angry welder." - Jaws: the Revenge

Executive Privelege is designed to protect the Executive Branch from unreasonable demands and endless interference from the legislature. While the Supreme Court has ruled that it cannot be used to conceal actual crimes, given the nature of this Congress and the irrational hatred it has for this President, if Bush caved to them this time, their would be a flurry of subpoenas for virtually every one of his aides on every conceivable subject of investigation. That is what infuriates me about this Congress - they have literally launched over 200 separate official investigations and another couple hundred "unofficial inquiries" into every aspect of this administration while ignoring many of their basic legislative responsibilities. At some point the game of "gotcha!" politics has got to end.

It'a already been established who leaked her identity, and it was NOT Cheney or Bush, or even Scooter Libby - this is just one more long witch hunt by a Congress whose hatred of Bush long ago trumped what little common sense they ever had. Over 500 investigations of the White House, but they can't even approve a general budget for the country they are supposed to be running. No wonder their approval rating is 9%.

Their approval is 9% because the only people listening to Bush are moron Democrats in Congress. Just look at the many subpoenas ignored by officials like Myers and Rove, while the committee in charge twiddles their thumbs instead of issuing arrest warrants. If they hated Bush, they'd be jailing people left and right. Instead, they continue to bow to the will of a lame duck. 68% of the country is currently opposed to the Iraq war, a number that has been closely consistent for a year. Democrats in congress keep giving it money. That ain't winning them any favors. Plus the right will never give the congress any props, so that's 90% of the country right there.

Quote

Lost sight of in all of this is the fact that Joe Wilson's report to the Bush Administration was deliberately skewed when he turned it in . . .

Skewered by the facts that there was no uranium in Niger being sold to Iraq, which there wasn't.

Quote

and that his hottie CIA wife, Valerie, had flaunted her "secret agent" status at Washington cocktail parties for years.

This is a talking point lie spread by the Right. Valerie explains it here and it is disproved about a billion other places on the net.

Quote

This whole thing is like the U.S. Attorney firings - routine political moves inflated to scandal status by politicians who would rather see Americal lose a war than see this President get credit for winning one.

Betrayal of American agents for political revenge is treason, no matter how you spin it. If the president authorized treason he should be impeached and sentenced to death. Which can be commuted to life in prison by President Obama. Claiming executive privilege is sort of like OJ running from the cops. It doesn't make you look innocent. I don't think Bush had anything to do with leaking, but one of his guys did and he is aiding in covering it up.

This whole thing is like the U.S. Attorney firings - routine political moves inflated to scandal status by politicians who would rather see Americal lose a war than see this President get credit for winning one.

Betrayal of American agents for political revenge is treason, no matter how you spin it. If the president authorized treason he should be impeached and sentenced to death. Which can be commuted to life in prison by President Obama. Claiming executive privilege is sort of like OJ running from the cops. It doesn't make you look innocent. I don't think Bush had anything to do with leaking, but one of his guys did and he is aiding in covering it up.

Actually Tars, I think the penalty for treason was reduced to life imprisonment sometime in the '90s, so I don't think the next head honcho would need to make any special changes. I would like to see someone in the government actually have to stand trial in a court of law and let a jury of citizens decide whether they're guilty of a crime. Whether Bush or any president I still think that Executive Privilege is a farce and stinks of a political technicality that allows someone supposedly elected by the people of the nation to put himself and his cronies above the persecution, whether correct or incorrect, by another branch of the government also elected by the people. "Witch hunt" or not, I thought our government was established with a system of checks and balances that prevented such things as dodging "the law", but I guess I was wrong. Once again though, whether party motivated or not, this looks to me to be another example of how anyone from either of the big two parties can use affiliation as an excuse to blame others for "ruining the country" and "unfairly attacking so-and-so".

Although I do have to flat out disagree with you Indy on the Supreme Court firings. Condemning a Democrat controlled senate for attacking Bush and friends because they're Republicans while defending in the same breath that the Gonzalez firings were completely unmotivated standard procedure just sounds like, yes I have to say it, something only a "Loyal Bushie" could say with a straight face.

But, as is the way of the world, it's just one opinion clashing with another. It's like trying to convince some people that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old or that Wes Craven's New Nightmare is a piece of sh!t: we can just agree to disagree and let the elected officials play out the soap operas we hired them to do so we don't have to.

Logged

"Don't make me stain my last clean shirt with the back of your head." - Shatter Dead"A grizzly bear with a chainsaw. Now THERE's a killing machine!" - The Simpsons"I've always wanted to make love to an angry welder." - Jaws: the Revenge

This whole thing is like the U.S. Attorney firings - routine political moves inflated to scandal status by politicians who would rather see Americal lose a war than see this President get credit for winning one.

Betrayal of American agents for political revenge is treason, no matter how you spin it. If the president authorized treason he should be impeached and sentenced to death. Which can be commuted to life in prison by President Obama. Claiming executive privilege is sort of like OJ running from the cops. It doesn't make you look innocent. I don't think Bush had anything to do with leaking, but one of his guys did and he is aiding in covering it up.

Actually Tars, I think the penalty for treason was reduced to life imprisonment sometime in the '90s, so I don't think the next head honcho would need to make any special changes.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

I find it funny that the law equates death with 5+ years imprisonment, a $10,000 fine, and ineligibility to hold public office. Guess human life isn't worth so much after all.

Logged

"Don't make me stain my last clean shirt with the back of your head." - Shatter Dead"A grizzly bear with a chainsaw. Now THERE's a killing machine!" - The Simpsons"I've always wanted to make love to an angry welder." - Jaws: the Revenge

Actually, the phrase is "not less" than 5 years. Treason can occur at different levels, however, the Founders set the bar pretty high for treason convictions because the monarchies of Europe used treason as a catch-all charge to imprison anyone they did not like.

Here is a good question - if you think President Bush, or WHOEVER leaked Valerie Plame's agent status (cough-cough RICHARD ARMITAGE!) is guilty of treason, what about the New York Times editors? They uncovered information about ongoing intelligence operations involving data mining overseas cell phone calls that were actively being used at the time by U.S. Intelligence to foil terrorist plots. When they consulted the White House, they were informed that the release of that data would be extremely harmful to our national security and would compromise U.S. intelligence gathering capability against the enemy. They published the report anyway, and immediately the enemy shifted tactics. Are they traitors too?

Oh, and Anubis, one quick note - above you referred to the "supreme court firings" by President Bush. No President can "fire" a Supreme Court justice. They can only be removed by death, voluntary retirement, or a full impeachment trial. However, U.S. attorneys are employees of the Executive Branch. They are appointed by the President, they work for the President, and the President can legally dismiss them at will. Bill Clinton fired 98 of them, and the Republican Congress, which was not exactly fond of Pres. Clinton, did not investigate the firings, accuse him of favoritism, or play it to the hilt in the media. Bush fired seven of them and you would have thought he was clubbing endangered baby seals or something from the press coverage it got . . . .

I find it disturbing that the scumbag that can send people to die for him should go scott free. That would be like letting Charles Manson off the hook...he sent others out to do his killing as well...and he's where he belongs...Bush is no better-just better connected and with more money. Dirtball.

I find it disturbing that the scumbag that can send people to die for him should go scott free. That would be like letting Charles Manson off the hook...he sent others out to do his killing as well...and he's where he belongs...Bush is no better-just better connected and with more money. Dirtball.

So do you deny the President's Constitutional mandate as Commander in Chief of the military?

Instead of thinking that this is something he (any President) 'gets to do,' maybe we should think of it as something he "has to do," as in a big, awesome, horrible responsibility.

You think any sane man WANTS to send others "to die?" That's a decision that is not entered into lightly, no matter how cavalier they are about it in movies - real life ain't movies.

Like Bush or hate him, or any President for that matter, but under the law of our land, he DOES have the legal authority to conduct the military as he sees fit. The check on that is that Congress controls the purse strings, and for all the talk about what "Bush's War" is costing, I don't see Congress stopping the funding.

If they were REALLY opposed to the war like they claim for the headlines, that's exactly what they would do...that's what the US Constitution says they have the power to do.

A nice quote I ran across the other day:

"...indeed, it was having Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in my memory that made it impossible for me to regard the 'antiwar' movement of the sixties as anything other than the childish, shortsighted, self-indulgent don't-draft-me-but-don't-call-me-a-coward-either movement that it mainly was (as proved by its complete disappearance with the abolition of the draft and the gung-ho way most of its one-time practitioners embraced or at least ignored the criminal military ventures of Bill "Don't Think About The Dress While I'm Bombing Foreigners' Clinton)."